The ACLU on guns

I noticed it was listed on the NRA-ILA site that the ACLU has supported anti-gun groups either financially or otherwise.

As a member of the ACLU, and a former intern who the head of the local branch very much likes and wants to come back to work when I get a chance - I would like it if you guys can give me a breakdown of what exactly it is they are doing that is anti-gun so I know what to address.

I will certainly be contacting them about it. I didn't work for, and join, a group that is supposed to be working against our rights. I joined and worked for the ACLU to protect our rights, and while I know they don't protect the second - working against it is a whole separate issue that I need to know about.

If you enjoyed reading about "The ACLU on guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

thexrayboy

April 21, 2007, 01:34 AM

Every thing I have read and heard over many years regarding the ACLU and the 2A has been negative in regards to their support for it. I do not know if
they have an officially posted position regarding it but their actions as near as can be determined do not support the Second. Being founded by persons of communist/socialist mentality would tend to make me believe they have no
use for self reliance, being able to take care of oneself flys in the face of socialist doctrine that the state should be all powerful telling the subjects what to do and how to live. The differences between socialism and communism are minimal at best.

tmajors

April 21, 2007, 01:43 AM

From the ACLU themselves on their website:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU on Gun Control (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)

Soybomb

April 21, 2007, 01:48 AM

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/04/07/aclu-in-texas-helps-protect-traveling-gun-owners/
The American Civil Liberties Union has joined the National Rifle Association to help protect the rights of Texans to travel with their guns, a move that has almost everybody scratching their heads.

I’m not even sure I know what to make of it, but it’s quite true. Someone in the ACLU chapter down in Texas has apparently realized that the right to self-defense is as important as the right to speech.

That the ACLU in Texas is doing anything related to gun rights is highly unusual; the national organization’s official position, sharply at variance with the Constitution, what few Supreme Court decisions there have been, and the simple lessons of history, is that Americans don’t have a right to own firearms. (Their bizarre Second Amendment position is akin to arguing that the First Amendment only protects government employees’ right to official speech.)

Jacob Sullum from Reason reports:

The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars. State law has long exempted people who have guns in their vehicles while “traveling” from being prosecuted for unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW), an offense punishable by up to a year in jail. But the definition of “traveling” was fuzzy, leaving gun owners vulnerable to arrest, prosecution, and conviction, depending on how police officers, prosecutors, and judges decided to read and apply the law. In 2005, at the urging of the gun groups and the state ACLU, the legislature passed a law that creates a presumption of “traveling” for any motorist in a private vehicle who is not legally disqualified from owning a gun, does not belong to “a criminal street gang,” is not engaged in criminal activity (beyond minor traffic infractions), and is not carrying the gun in plain view. But in a report issued last February, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the Texas Criminal Justice Association showed that many district and county attorney**** and Run are instructing police to carry on as before, arresting motorists for UCW at their discretion and letting prosecutors and judges sort things out. —

That’s right, in Texas, the legislature has specifically said not to bother ordinary people who are traveling with their guns, people like Katy geologist Keith Patton, who lost a $300 pistol he’d just bought, $1,500 in attorney’s fees, $268 in vehicle impound fees, and a night in jail, because local prosecutors and cops are still harassing law-abiding citizens by arresting them and bringing them up on trumped-up charges.

The controversy, such as can be said to exist, is largely manufactured by the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, which advised local prosecutors to ignore the plain meaning of the law and the intent of the legislature and that police could still arrest law-abiding citizens because, they said, a court had to decide if they were “traveling.”

“Therefore,” it declared, “officers are still acting within their lawful discretion if they arrest a person who might qualify for the traveling defense or the new traveling presumption.”

Or, as Charles A. Rosenthal Jr., the district attorney of Harris County, which includes Houston, argued, “The presumption of innocence does not make the person innocent.”

Will Harrell, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said that even before the current dispute, his group and the N.R.A. had been collaborating on racial profiling issues, particularly on what he called a “Bubba profile” that made certain white men the focus of gun checks by the police. — New York Times

Harrell said his collaboration with the Texas State Rifle Association came easy. And, “the police don’t know what to think of it,” he told the Times.

What exactly is the ACLU doing with the gun people? I’m not sure, but if they’re finally starting to protect the civil rights of gun owners, I can hardly complain.

torpid

April 21, 2007, 01:54 AM

From what I can gather, the Texas ACLU is a different breed than the other chapters in that it actually cares about defending ALL of our rights.

DrDeFab

April 21, 2007, 02:31 AM

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." - Policy #47 (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html) [emphasis mine]

...and they call that a "neutral" position. :scrutiny:

Also, the ACLU of Southern California posted (as recently as 2003):
The ACLU of Southern California believes effective gun control especially of handguns and assault weapons is essential to curbing the escalating violence in our society. - as archived at web.archive.org (http://web.archive.org/web/20030711091227/http://aclu-sc.org/reports/2ndamend.htm)

That's enough for me.

If you'll pardon the pithy folk aphorism; "Therefore, if they ain't for us they must be agin us..." - [And bonus points if you know who got that one into newsprint ;) ]

3rdpig

April 21, 2007, 03:17 AM

Notice how the ACLU has adopted the generic "assault weapon" moniker. And we've all seen how "assault weapon" can be morphed to cover anything from an AK-47 to a 10/22 to a pump action shotgun with the dreaded barrel shroud.

They push for "common sense" gun control, then change the meaning of the word, thus expanding the boundaries of their ban far beyond what the original legislation proposed.

As Carolyn McCarthy proved, most of the banners don't even know what they're banning.

The ACLU is the enemy, pure and simple.

Soybomb

April 21, 2007, 03:39 AM

The ACLU is the enemy, pure and simple.
Can you give me a few examples of the aclu working against us to sell me on this?

Robert Hairless

April 21, 2007, 04:11 AM

If all pro-gun people refused employment with organizations such as the ACLU there will be no pro-gun people working within those groups.

You can be much more effective and useful within the organization, where you might be able to influence it to at least some extent, than outside as a member of the resentfuls.

In those situations more can be done by example than by diatribe. What I mean is that if you are a sensible, responsible, levelheaded, likeable, and "normal" person who does his work well--and who does not try to convert or confront anyone--you demonstrate that not all gun owners are fanatics or lunatics.

We can use that kind of representation. Take the job. Don't get bogged down in the muck. Do some good.

Thain

April 21, 2007, 10:21 AM

I'm a member of the ACLU and the NRA. I care deeply about the 1st and the 2nd, and each group is very good at defending their speciality.

NM234

April 21, 2007, 11:19 AM

From the ACLU:

"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide."

So everything else I have read said they have really fought neither way on the issue, the reason they may have funded other groups that have is due to that group supporting 1st A rights or the like.

Their reasoning:

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

I agree with the above, join both the ACLU and the NRA, the ACLU for 1a rights, the NRA for 2a rights.

lanternlad1

April 21, 2007, 12:38 PM

As a card carrying member of BOTH the ACLU AND the NRA, I look at it this way...

The ACLU works hard to protect MOST of our rights.
The NRA works hard to protect the right the ACLU doesnt protect.

That way, I'm covered. :)

The problem with the Constitution is, either it works for EVERYONE, or it doesn't work at all. :) These two groups disagree on different points, but the big picture is the same for both - "Defend Freedom or Lose It".

antsi

April 21, 2007, 12:55 PM

NM234 - do you actually believe that the 2nd ammendment was meant to protect states' rights to maintain militias?

This is such a transparent fabrication, a tortured reading, and intellectually dishonest. I don't think any person with any kind of honesty can read the 2nd and believe that it does not apply to "the people."

The fact that the ACLU has, as its official policy, decided to write an item off of the bill of rights on the basis of such a flimsy excuse, discredits the entire organization.

What other civil right will they similarly "explain away" as soon as it becomes inconvenient for the advancement of their social agenda?

For all the other civil rights, they promote as wide a reading as possible. Flag burning? It's a form of "speech." Abortion? It's protected by a right to privacy that is obvious if you read between the lines. But the second ammendment, which is there in obvious plain language, somehow "doesn't count."

Sorry; this is not a principled organization pursuing civil rights idealistically. This is a left wing political advocacy organization wrapping itself in the cloak of civil rights.

obm

April 21, 2007, 01:52 PM

the problem with the aclu is their hypocrisy. they will fight with unabated zeal and uncompromising passion to protect all the amendments in the bill of rights...cept for the 2nd amendment.

they take all the amendments and say, "this is the law, no ifs ands or buts"....cept for the 2nd amendment. they rationalize why the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to citizens.

the aclu are hypocrites. having said that, they do protect most of our civil liberties. until another organization comes along that respects the constitution in it's entirety the alcu is the only 800lbs gorilla when it comes to keeping the government in check with regard to our civil liberties.

Agent 006 &7/8

April 21, 2007, 02:24 PM

The preamble of the US Constitution begins... WE THE PEOPLE
The First Amendment... or the Right of THE PEOPLE..
The Second Amendment... the Right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...
The Fourth Amendment... The Right of THE PEOPLE to be secure...
The Ninth Amendment... retained by THE PEOPLE.
The Tenth Amendment... or to THE PEOPLE.

And several places throughout the body of the Constitution references "the People" When the Founders wrote the Constitution they were very clear as to when they were refering to the Central Government, the States (often refered to as "the Many States") and the people.

NM234

April 21, 2007, 02:49 PM

As I stated before, I am against gun control. I just posted that to help clarify the ACLU's stance. And I do agree with them on most things; although I would never do it, I don't think flag burning should be illegal so long as you own the flag and its done in a manner that does not risk catching anything on fire (I sorta see it as both a property thing and a speech thing, you buy the flag and you are allowed to speak against the government); I am somewhat pro-choice (only for the first couple months, before the fetus develops any ability to think (before even risking hitting that point) ; I don't feel its more alive than a sperm or egg at that point; also I can see it being a privacy issue given doctor/patient rights). Also the ACLU has defended conservatives before, they offered to help defend Rush Limbaugh's medical records. Also a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU defended a Neo-Nazi's right to free speach. They stood against Hillary Clinton when she helped co-sponsor an attempt to make flag burning illegal.

That said I do think they have attracted more of a following from liberals than conservatives, but I know conservatives who are members as well. I do feel that their stance against 2a rights is the one thing I truly disagree with them on.

NM234

April 21, 2007, 02:56 PM

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

Although I am against gun control, that is the wording. So I can see why there would be some confusion. It does say militia, now for example, the michigan militia owns weapons we as individuals can't, because they are a militia.

I personally think people should be allowed to own basically anything other than WMDs. I think that, for example, a mounted machine gun, should be allowed to be owned by an individual. We allow corporations to own such items (actually one way around some gun laws, if you are a doctor, lawyer, businessman, who owns some sort of business/practice, if you declare yourself a corporation you can own much more weaponry than a individual can (I have heard this from multiple places, but correct me if I'm wrong). I think this is wrong, if a corporation can own it, we (individuals) should be able to as well)

obxned

April 21, 2007, 03:05 PM

ACLU = quislings!

Joe Demko

April 21, 2007, 03:12 PM

Let's see...the ACLU pretty much refuses to get involved in 2A cases. This rather renders their postition on it moot. As a life member of the NRA for a very long time, I can tell you the NRA doesn't get involved outside of 2A issues. This renders their position on such issues moot as well.
The ACLU has fought many fights from which we all, as Americans, have benefitted.

Don't let this get in the way of you enjoying your daily period of recreational outrage, though.

Aguila Blanca

April 21, 2007, 09:57 PM

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
:confused:

I certainly don't concede that, and I don't know a single shooter or gun owner who does. So what gun owners comprise this undocumented "most" of which they speak?

The 2nd Amendment says I have a right to keep and bear "arms." It does not say what kind of arms, nor does it mention or authorize any sort of "reasonable regulation." Back in the period when the Constitution was written the U.S. didn't have (and didn't want) a standing army. So where did militia's get their heavy armaments (cannons)? Simple -- the local squire (who was probably also appointed the commanding officer) owned them. Since cannons were the heaviest "arms" they had back then and private citizens were allowed to own them, IMHO that directly equates to me being allowed to own a tank or a fighter aircraft.

Titan6

April 21, 2007, 10:12 PM

This isn't hard.
Hear it from the horse's mouth.

The Embarrassing Second Ammendment.

Keep in mind Levinson wrote this
before his mind slipped a gear or two.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

AntiqueCollector

April 21, 2007, 10:13 PM

The ACLU was founded by communists to push their agenda under a disguise of being "patriots" defending the constitution. No suprise they don't support the second ammendment.

Texshooter

April 22, 2007, 12:28 AM

The ACLU is selective in which of the Bill of Rights they believe in.

They are phoneys.

And, as stated, they were started by Communists to undermine the Republic.

Chui

April 22, 2007, 01:08 AM

"I didn't work for, and join, a group that is supposed to be working against our rights."

Wanna bet you didn't?

ArmsAkimber

April 22, 2007, 01:18 AM

Last time I checked, the ACLU has a .pdf file of the Bill Of Rights posted on their website. The managed to come up with a way to simultaniously copy the language of the 2nd amendment verbatim, while marginalizing it (literally). This .pdf present the amendments in a left-right-left-etc justification pattern. Consequently, the second amendment is tucked away to the right side of the page.

Before anyone accusing me of being a member of the tin foil hat brigade, ask yourself, why would they bother with this idiosyncratic formatting.

Snowdiver

April 22, 2007, 01:36 AM

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

I do not concede this either. My right is just that my right to keep and BEAR ARMS, this has been my right, my fathers right , my grandfathers right and it WILL be my SON'S RIGHT.

Soybomb

April 22, 2007, 02:53 AM

Its an interesting thread to read. WHen I read a NRA thread its a bunch of "they do more harm than good, they're the best lobby we have for the 2nd amendment, you have to join them."

When it comes to an ACLU thread I would naturally expect to read "i wish they supported the individual right of the 2nd, but they're the biggest lobby for our other freedoms, as long as they don't do any harm to the 2nd support them." Instead I see posts saying how 70-90 years ago there were communists in the ACLU so we shouldn't join them today....

Its weird how those things work on gun boards.

antsi

April 22, 2007, 08:11 AM

------quote-------
although I would never do it, I don't think flag burning should be illegal so long as you own the flag and its done in a manner that does not risk catching anything on fire (I sorta see it as both a property thing and a speech thing, you buy the flag and you are allowed to speak against the government); I am somewhat pro-choice
-------------------

I wasn't expressing agreement or disagreement with the ACLU's stances on these issues - I happen to agree with one of them and disagree on the other - but that's not the point.

My point is that they advertise themselves as being proponents of civil rights in general, and always support the broadest possible interpretation of the language of the constitution. In most cases, they are always trying to expand the interpretation to include new rights and new manifestations of rights that the founders never could possibly have had in mind.

Except, in this one case, they adopt a tortured and bizarre reading of the 2nd ammendment that guts it and makes it totally meaningless.

Every other right, they read in a way that strengthens and expands it - sometimes to ridiculous extent. But this one right, they choose to read in a way that fatally weakens it.

I'm sorry, but that is not intellectually honest. It is not principled.

In fact, it is downright dangerous because it sets a precedent that whenever there is an item in the bill of rights that's inconvenient or conflicts with your agenda, all you have to do is come up with a new twisted interpretation of it and "poof" it's gone.

Nobody who is purely motivated by a concern for civil liberties is going to sanction this procedure.

And I'm sorry, but it's not "confusion" either. Anyone who has read the rest of the bill of rights, or any of the writings of the founders, knows what they meant. When they wrote "the right of the people" that's what they meant. Neither the language nor the context is even remotely ambiguous, unless you have an agenda and you're looking for a loophole.

Nor do I buy the take that the ACLU protects all the other rights and the NRA protects the 2nd. It is not acceptable in a civil rights organization to pick and choose which civil rights you think are obsolete, or only exercised by rednecks, and then pretend they don't exist.

NM234

April 22, 2007, 10:59 AM

I think that, because there are more dems than republicans in the ACLU and that we have been given the impression all dems are for gun control (which isn't true because I'm a democrat that is against gun control), the ACLU is afraid of loosing support and not having the funding to do anything. The NRA has made concessions as well. Nearly every group involved in the political world (which both groups are) is deathly afraid of loosing money. I think that if more people were to right to the ACLU and tell them they would lend them some form of support if they defended 2a rights they would do it. But most people simply write them off that are pro-gun, therefore they might be afraid if they fight gun control they will lose their funding. And EVERY group needs funding.

I do agree though it is hypocritical, but I like their defense of the other ammendments.

As far as not conceeding having a right to own nuclear warheads etc., If you allowed people to buy WMDs they could buy things like the Ebola virus, genetically engineered Anthrax and the like.

I think that it does end beyond ordinary ordinance (we should be able to own machine guns, bazookas, mortars; but we can't let everyone own WMDs. It would mean the end of the human race.)

Titan6

April 22, 2007, 11:00 AM

-sigh-

It is my fault. I should have posted the article with the link. It is too long though. Here is the first chapter. All will be made quite clear.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment

Sanford Levinson
University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of the United States as seen by a New Yorker, As most readers can no doubt recall, Manhattan dominates the map; everything west of the Hudson is more or less collapsed together and minimally displayed to the viewer. Steinberg's great cover depends for its force on the reality of what social psychologists call "cognitive maps." If one asks inhabitants ostensibly of the same cities to draw maps of that city, one will quickly discover that the images carried around in people's minds will vary by race, social class, and the like. What is true of maps of places --that they differ according to the perspectives of the mapmakers--is certainly true of all conceptual maps.
To continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights; is there an agreed upon "projection" of the concept? Is there even a canonical text of the Bill of Rights? Does it include the first eight, nine, or ten Amendments to the Constitution? [1] Imagine two individuals who are asked to draw a "map" of the Bill of Rights. One is a (stereo-) typical member of the American Civil Liberties Union (of which I am a card-carrying member); the other is an equally (stereo-) typical member of the "New Right." The first, I suggest, would feature the First Amendment [2] as Main Street, dominating the map, though more, one suspects, in its role as protector of speech and prohibitor of established religion than as guardian of the rights of religious believers. The other principal avenues would be the criminal procedures aspects of the Constitution drawn from the Fourth, [3] Fifth, [4] Sixth, [5] and Eighth [6] Amendments. Also depicted prominently would be the Ninth Amendment, [7] although perhaps as in the process of construction. I am confident that the ACLU map would exclude any display of the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment [8] or of the Tenth Amendment. [9]
The second map, drawn by the New Rightist, would highlight the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, [10] the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment, [11] and the Tenth Amendment. [12] Perhaps the most notable difference between the two maps, though, would be in regard to the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." What would be at most a blind alley for the ACLU mapmaker would, I am confident, be a major boulevard in the map drawn by the New Right adherent. It is this last anomaly that I want to explore in this essay.
I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment
To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion --law reviews, [13] casebooks, [14] and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars." [15]
Both Laurence Tribe [16] and the Illinois team of Nowak, Rotunda, and Young [17] at least acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendment in their respective treatises on constitutional law, perhaps because the treatise genre demands more encyclopedic coverage than does the casebook. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended analysis. Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes; it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a "supplement" to the ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the text. [18] Professor Tribe's footnote appears as part of a general discussion of congressional power. He asserts that the history of the Amendment "indicate[s] that the central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy." [19] He does note, how ever, that "the debates surrounding congressional approval of the second amendment do contain references to individual self-protection as well as to states' rights," but he argues that the qualifying phrase "'well regulated" makes any invocation of the Amendment as a restriction on state or local gun control measures extremely problematic." [20] Nowak, Rotunda, and Young mention the Amendment in the context of the incorporation controversy, though they discuss its meaning at slightly greater length. [21] They state that "[t]he Supreme Court has not determined, at least not with any clarity, whether the amendment protects only a right of state governments against federal interference with state militia and police forces.. .or a right of individuals against the federal and state government[s]." [22]
Clearly the Second Amendment is not the only ignored patch of text in our constitutional conversations. One will find extraordinarily little discussion about another one of the initial Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Nor does one hear much about letters of marque and reprisal [23] or the granting of titles of nobility. [24] There are, however, some differences that are worth noting.
The Third Amendment, to take the easiest case, is ignored because it is in fact of no current importance what whatsoever (although it did, for obvious reasons, have importance at the time of the founding). It has never, for a single instant, been viewed by any body of modern lawyers or groups of laity as highly relevant to their legal or political concerns. For this reason, there is almost no case law on the Amendment. [25] I suspect that few among even the highly sophisticated readers of the Journal can summon up the Amendment without the aid of the text.
The Second Amendment, though, is radically different from these other pieces of constitutional text just mentioned, which all share the attribute of being basically irrelevant to any ongoing political struggles. To grasp the difference, one might simply begin by noting that it is not at all unusual for the Second Amendment to show up in letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. [26] That judges and academic lawyers, including the ones that write casebooks, ignore it is most certainly not evidence for the proposition that no one else cares about it. The National Rifle Association, to name the most obvious example, cares deeply about the Amendment, and an apparently serious Senator of the United States averred that the right to keep and bear arms is the "right most valued by free men." [27] Campaigns for Congress in both political parties, and even presidential campaigns, may turn on the apparent commitment of the candidates to a particular view of the Second Amendment. This reality of the political process reflects the fact that millions of Americans, even if (or perhaps especially if) they are not academics, can quote the Amendment and would disdain any presentation of the Bill of Rights that did not give it a place of pride.
I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, [28] is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay --The Embarrassing Second Amendment -- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights (such as most members of the ACLU). Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU.
It is not my style to offer "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations of the Constitution. [29] My major interest is in delineating the rhetorical structures of American constitutional argument and elaborating what is sometimes called the "politics of interpretation," that is, the factors that explain why one or another approach will appeal to certain analysts at certain times, while other analysts, or times, will favor quite different approaches. Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. In some contexts, this would lead me to label as tendentious the certainty of NRA advocates that the Amendment means precisely what they assert it does. In this particular context--i.e., the pages of a journal whose audience is much more likely to be drawn from an elite, liberal portion of the public--I will instead be suggesting that the skepticism should run in the other direction, That is, we might consider the possibility that "our" views of the Amendment, perhaps best reflected in Professor Tribe's offhand treatment of it, might themselves be equally deserving of the "tendentious" label.

NM234

April 22, 2007, 11:47 AM

The ACLU does not prohibit organized religion, they merely want it seperated from the state and public institutions. This I agree with, when I was growing up I was an atheist; I'm not sure now, but still the point is if you have prayer in public schools that is sorta forcing a belief on someone. For example, what prayer should we say? Maybe a muslim prayer? I'm sure that wouldn't go over to well. A Jewish prayer? A Catholic prayer? A Protestant prayer? (yes, I know both Catholics and Protestants have most of the same prayers, but their are some differences in how they pray) A recitation of the tenents of humanism (a moral/ethical/almost "religous" (I put the quotations because its almost an equvailent of religious code for atheists/agnostics or I guess anyone who wants to follow it) code developed mostly by atheists/agnostics promoting peace and enlightenment)?

Also they put the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses in some areas, which a legal struggle is currently going on about. Some of the Ten Commandments are not law.

Now like I said, I myself am exploring opening up my spirituality, but let church be at church and school be at school (now if its a private school thats different) and court be at court. As one minister I know said, he wouldn't even want them teaching religion in school because they are not the experts on it.

fatelk

April 22, 2007, 02:20 PM

Debating the ACLU on a board like this seems like a waste of time. If you are socially conservative on the issues of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, creation/evolution, etc.- you will see it one way.
If you are liberal on those issues- you will likely love the ACLU.
Someone from one perspective is not going to convince someone of the other perspective in regard to the ACLU on the basis of gun rights alone.

The religion unofficially endorsed and pushed by the ACLU is called Secular Humanism, basically Man is God. That is why they get so upset when someone would dare question the sacred tenet of their faith, Darwinian Evolution. They want to see Christianity confined to a nice little church building only, just like the Soviets.

I know; that last statement will get me flamed by those who just saw red by reading it; so be it. I just wanted to illustrate that those of us with a more conservative moral perspective will never support the ACLU, even though they occasionally do a few good things, and even if they started supporting gun rights.

baz

April 22, 2007, 03:03 PM

Quoting ACLU:If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.Well, then, if we can license and register cars, we can license and register speech. Oh no, they'd quickly respond: speech is protected by the first amendment. And the RKBA is protected by the second! Oh, and which amendment guarantees the right to own and drive cars, btw?

That's a lousy analogy the ACLU has made, and lousy reasoning. If that's typical of their cognitive abilities, I'm not impressed.

Jim K

April 22, 2007, 03:17 PM

The problem of the ACLU and others is that they want the Bill of Rights to be subject to "pick and choose." This right is good, that one is bad. They still accept the "collective right" theory to support that view, and since they take each amendment separately, they can do that.

But in context, that doesn't work. If the Second Amendment is a collective right available only to the state, then Freedom of the Press must apply only to official publications of the state, and privately owned newspapers and news media can be rigidly controlled and censored.

Likewise, Freedom of Religion would apply only to an official state religion; the ban on an official religion could be said to apply only to the federal government, so Massachusetts could declare Catholicism as its religion and ban all others. Alabama could decide Baptists are free to worship, but imprison Methodists. Why not, if the "collective/state right" idea is good for one Right, it should be good for all.

Why not forget all the voting nonsense? We could just watch on TV as the state governor casts a ballot exercising our "collective" right.

And so on. The "collective right" idea is simply absurd, even though the ACLU and others have never been able to see the inherent contradictions.

Jim

ACORN

April 22, 2007, 03:29 PM

Very well stated, Mr Keenan.

bogie

April 22, 2007, 03:36 PM

Sigh...

If I had a chance to get a paying job with the ACLU, don't you think I'd take it?

And I'll bet you'd LIKE what would happen.

You ain't gonna be able to change SQUAT about any organization if you are coming at it from outside. All you can do, like so many of y'all have BEEN doing, is bitch about it on internet forums, and virtually smack each other on the back and tell y'all how righteous you are. Do you know what this accomplishes?

Back in the sixties and seventies, one of the theories that people kept tossing around was that you had to take over "the system" from within.

Where do you think so many of our government bureaucrats and teachers came from? They made an effort to join organizations, so they could change them from within.

River Wraith

April 22, 2007, 04:14 PM

Maybe I'll give it a shot, then. You joined the ACLU?

Cosmoline

April 22, 2007, 04:32 PM

The ACLU is run by a bunch of hypocrites. They have preemptively adopted the most restrictive reading of the Second. They have constantly refused to even acknowledge that other interpretations exist, even as several circuits have acknowledged the clause recognizes an individual right. It's as if they decided the First Amendment applied only to antique printing presses.

With these guys, when the RKBA comes up, their brains switch off. My old Con Law professor, who's now an appellate judge in Oregon, was a brilliant man. But his "lecture" on the Second was a fierce and terse denial of any meaning. There was no reasoning, no debate and no analysis. Just a rejection of the entire clause on thinly veiled political grounds. Guns scared the hell out of him, so that part of the Constitution could have no meaning. He also took the opportunity to urge us not to vote for Pete Defazio because he wasn't exactly PC when it came to gun control. He's typical of the folks who run the ACLU. They have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the RKBA, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. The ACLU is in many respects a religious institution, and trying to change core doctrine in any religious institution is exceptionally difficult.

Chui

April 23, 2007, 12:40 AM

The ACLU is still run by Communist/Soviet/Marxist/Liberals. Don't be fooled. It's much more dangerous to our nation than just the 2nd Amendment.

Go research the organization, it's history and it's official position since it's inception.

Chui

April 23, 2007, 12:45 AM

""A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

Although I am against gun control, that is the wording. So I can see why there would be some confusion. It does say militia, now for example, the michigan militia owns weapons we as individuals can't, because they are a militia."

The militia is defined as all males between the ages of 17 and 45. YOU are probably unorganized militia as defined in the US Code. If you throw that term around and play in the woods you've been declared a "tango" by Full Metal Janet and others who you should pay close attention to...

gotarheels03

April 23, 2007, 01:07 AM

Yes, it does say militia, but in every historical text ive ever read the militia was composed of "the people" and those texts said that those people were required to have sufficient arms and ammunition. Yes, the individual states aided in their organization when needed, but they were composed of individuals with individual arms. I'm a member of the modern "unorganized militia" but I can't very well serve in it if i'm not armed.

fireflyfather

April 23, 2007, 01:40 AM

Fatelk: Actually, the Soviets wanted the churches done away with altogether. The ACLU just doesn't want them getting either endorsements or money from the government (and tax breaks are the equivalent of money!).

What you've just done is equate zero with negative ten.

RE the ACLU & the second: It's simple. If you want change in an organization like that, become a member and speak up. If you can't agree with anything they stand for, then by all means flame, but don't be a hypocrite about other groups you belong to (NRA or otherwise).

Robert Hairless

April 23, 2007, 04:16 AM

bogie:

If I had a chance to get a paying job with the ACLU, don't you think I'd take it?

And I'll bet you'd LIKE what would happen.

You ain't gonna be able to change SQUAT about any organization if you are coming at it from outside. All you can do, like so many of y'all have BEEN doing, is bitch about it on internet forums, and virtually smack each other on the back and tell y'all how righteous you are. Do you know what this accomplishes?

NOTHING.

Join it. Go to meetings. Change it from within.
__________________
Take Back The Media,
Take back the VOTE!

Right! The only voice people have when they isolate themselves is opinions, lamentations, and complaints.

Decades ago, when I was a teenager, my father signed me up as an envelope stuffer for a presidential campaign before I was old enough to vote in one. He had heard me discuss politics (with all the wisdom of a teenager) and said "If you've going to have opinions you need to learn what you're talking about. Here's where you start your education. Keep your mouth shut, your ears open, and stuff envelopes or anything else they need you to do. This is politics." I must have stuffed 100,000,000 envelopes (that's what it felt like) in that campaign, and I listened. Learned an awful lot even though I never got to meet or see the candidate.

One thing I learned is that anyone who stays on the outside can have all the opinions in the world but in the end they accomplish nothing more than wasted breath.

Economist, take that job.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 09:24 AM

I see no reason why religion SHOULDN'T be confined to churches and other private organizations as an officially endorsed position. Now if you want to share your opinions and beliefs in a public forum that is fine. At the public university I go to students often cite their religous beliefs as a basis for forming opinions, and I have never seen a professor treat them with disrespect because of it. But public schools etc. shouldn't open with a prayer, the Ten Commandments shouldn't be in courtrooms (for example, not taking the lord's name in vain is not a law),etc.

And this is coming from someone who has just recently enrolled in classes to become a member of the Catholic faith.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 09:38 AM

Also I do agree that argueing about the ACLU on this board is pointless, for example my sister is a lesbian, and even before finding this out I felt that homosexuals should have all the same legal rights as anyone else.

Also although I don't own any pornography I feel its not my right to tell another adult they can't own it so long as children are not exposed to it or used in its making.

But those who disagree will argue this, and rarely will people change their viewpoint on issues. It is only when you are uneducated on an issue that you may change your mind (I actually was for a decent amount of gun control such as requiring classes, tests, and evaluation before one is allowed to own one. But after reading both sides and thinking it through I changed my mind and now I am against prohibiting anyone other than violent felons from owning guns (I feel that certain non-violent crimes shouldn't prohibit gun ownership so long as the person has payed their debt to society).

So I would say if you don't like guns don't own one, but don't stop me from owning them. If you aren't a homosexual or don't agree w/it (I admit even though I am for their equal rights I would not want to even see to guys having see to guys having sex, so I don't) participate in those acts. If you are against or don't like pornography don't buy it or watch it. If you don't like drugs don't take them (I don't take anything the doctor doesn't recommend and I have carefully resarched myself other than coffee and cigarettes) but so long as the user committs no crime like DUI or any other criminal act I don't think its anyone else's business so long as they are an adult. Basically so long as you do not hurt someone else physically or financially (other than when their is good reason such as self defense or competing businesses) you should have the right to do what you want.

So even though I may disagree with things I don't force my beliefs on others, I will debate (I love to have respectful debates with those that hold opinions different than mine), but other than that people should decide what they feel is right so long as they don't hurt others.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 09:41 AM

one typo I wanted to correct (... I don't even want to see two guys having sex)

NM234

April 23, 2007, 09:42 AM

and I meant don't participate in those acts if you don't agree w/it when referring to homsexuality above. Sorry I was typing fast.

max popenker

April 23, 2007, 09:47 AM

The ACLU is still run by Communist/Soviet/Marxist/Liberals
Chui, you insult Soviets ;)
I was taught to use AK-47 when i was 14, and it was in Soviet school ;)

buzz_knox

April 23, 2007, 09:54 AM

My point is that they advertise themselves as being proponents of civil rights in general, and always support the broadest possible interpretation of the language of the constitution. In most cases, they are always trying to expand the interpretation to include new rights and new manifestations of rights that the founders never could possibly have had in mind.

Not always. There is a school in NC with a student-led prayer during the raising of the flag, before classes began for the day. This is Constitutional as long as the school opened itself up for any group to use similarly. Teachers were attending the meeting on a purely participatory basis, not leading it. However, the school had, after being threatened with litigation before, had arranged with the local ACLU for the ACLU to determine if such activities were vaild. The ACLU opined the teachers involvement was illegal and the ACLU would sue if it happened. The teachers were then banned from attending by the school board.

Prior restraint on freedom of speech? Check.
Restrictions on freedom of assembly? Check.
ACLU setting itself up as the final arbiter on what speech is permitted? Check.

The ACLU is like any other large organization; it exists first to serve its own needs and second the desires of its constituency.

Mannlicher

April 23, 2007, 10:07 AM

all you need to know about the ACLU, is that it is an anti American group, founded by enemies of Democracy.
ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Quoted in the National Federation for Decency Journal, September 1988. Page 9.

They are not the friends of gun owners.

Carl N. Brown

April 23, 2007, 10:46 AM

ACLU:
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

Since ACLU is strongly identified with New York urban liberalism, I wonder
if the ACLU position on the right to keep and bear arms isn't a New York
cultural thing.

I have a small list of state "right to keep and bear arms" constitutional
and state bill of rights clauses which parallel the federal Second Amendment;
for instance, Tennessee supports the right of the citizens to keep and
bear arms for defense of themselves and of the state; the state
reserves the authority to regulate the public wearing of arms solely
with a view to prevent crime.

New York only has a militia clause in its state constitution (and
maintains State Guards seperate and distinct from the National Guard).
There is no right to keep and bear arms under the New York state
constitution or state bill of rights.

For that reason, I think most New Yorkers (especially New York City)
have a different mindset on the right to keep and bear arms than
those of us who live in states where the right of the citizen to
keep and bear arms is part of our state constitutions.

That may explain the ACLU's myopia on the Second Amendment as
a "New York" attitude.

And since many of our TV and movie screenwriters originate from
New York, it might explain some of the Hollyweird attitudes and
movie myths about guns.

buzz_knox

April 23, 2007, 11:04 AM

Since ACLU is strongly identified with New York urban liberalism, I wonder if the ACLU position on the right to keep and bear arms isn't a New York cultural thing.

It's based on a results oriented mentality. They don't like the results of the individual rights doctrine in this one area, so they reject it. This is the same kind of excuse that they rail against in various court cases. But, none are so blind or hypocritical as the righteously indignant.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 11:11 AM

If what you said was true about the case of the student led prayer then I completely agree that the ACLU was wrong. Now I would like to see the specifics of the case (for example weither students who did not participate were intimidated that if they had teachers that attended they may be marked differently; this is the only way I could agree with their arguement. I would be somewhat afraid that if the teachers are in attendence of the prayer that they may subconciously or even conciously (I have known some religous people who hold their beliefs to an extreme where they feel prejudiced against those who hold different beliefs; I feel such a stance is wrong) mark them differently. I could see their attendence being an issue on such a basis.)

Also just because someone who founded the ACLU was a Socialist does not mean that they hold those beliefs today. My father is a member of the ACLU and I have heard nothing of them speaking of abolishing the state in any of the material he has recieved. And even if someone is a Socialist they do have a right to that viewpoint (we are not a completely capitalistic country, things such as public school or even treating someone who is gravely ill but can not pay for their care is a socialist idea;in a completely capitalistic state there would be no economic help of any kind unless someone did so privately, also with the gap between rich and poor growing and the middle class dissapearing I do believe we need to take steps to redistribute the wealth to SOME extent (I say some because I don't believe in total financial equality, but anyone who works 40 hours a week should be able to comfortably provide for their family. We do need the garbage man, the cashier, and other jobs that are paid extremely poorly. I also believe everyone has the right to medical care, no one deserves to be suffering from disease and not recieve help; even if you use the excuse that they are lazy etc. (which I know families who have one or two members working full time who can't afford health care) we have a clause against cruel and unusual punishment. I feel not treating the sick or allowing people to starve is cruel) and there are different types of socialism, such as democratic socialism which believes people have the right to govern themselves. Socialism is an economic system, democracy is a political system.

That said I'm not a socialist, but even if I disagree with someone 99% of the time I'm willing to work with them on that 1% I do agree with them on.

deltacharlie

April 23, 2007, 11:25 AM

Here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17905) is what the ACLU is doing for American society.

Need any further help or proof, Google: "ACLU" "NAMBLA"
but not on a full stomach.

Have a nice day!

Mongo the Mutterer

April 23, 2007, 11:31 AM

While you are Googling NAMBLA, you might want to Google "Charles Rust-Tierney" to see the type of scum they elevate to high positions.

The ACLU is the "politically pretty" organization. The Lawyers Guild are the Communists. There isn't a whit of difference between the two in my eyes.

Oh wait, that's right, they didn't run it, how silly of me. CNN was too busy focusing it's attention on Rove & Chenney. The arrest of some high profile pedophile won't serve their common agenda :rolleyes:

There you have it, the ACLU, working to secure and promote vile cruelty against children in America. Well, that is, as long as it is not one of their children.

Any questions?

WhitetailFanatic

April 23, 2007, 12:22 PM

the problem with the aclu is their hypocrisy. they will fight with unabated zeal and uncompromising passion to protect all the amendments in the bill of rights...cept for the 2nd amendment.

+1

Chui

April 23, 2007, 01:32 PM

"I'm a member of the modern "unorganized militia" but I can't very well serve in it if i'm not armed."

You can easily remedy this. And yes you can serve. In my view assisting your fellow man in time of dire circumstances qualifies. Yes, it helps if you are armed and trained, but all circumstances don't require arms. Sometimes assisting in construction projects or providing food, water and comfort is all that's needed. But don't delude yourself: look at the circumstances surrounding Katrina...

NM234

April 23, 2007, 01:57 PM

I've never heard of the ACLU saying people have a right to molest children, they simply state that people have a right to say they should be able to (which disgusts me, but is true; even NAMBLA has a right to free speach. Hell, you have a right to say you think murder is ok, so long as you don't make imminent threats).

NM234

April 23, 2007, 02:00 PM

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

That is the direct quote from the ACLU. Those aren't my words. But I do agree, it is easiest to start the slippery slope of curtailing the first ammendment by stopping people from saying things %99.9 of us find disgusting.

fatelk

April 23, 2007, 02:01 PM

Fatelk: Actually, the Soviets wanted the churches done away with altogether. The ACLU just doesn't want them getting either endorsements or money from the government (and tax breaks are the equivalent of money!).

Actually, the Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of religion as well as separation of church and state. In reality, they allowed only state controlled churches, and persecuted any that dared let their religion influence their lives beyond the walls of the church building. Sound familiar?

The ACLU twists the first amendment the same way they twist the second. It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It really reminds me of Animal Farm the way they twist things around. They do not care about the original intent of the US constitution. They consider it a "Living Document" that can be read differently as society changes.
The constitution spells out the methods for true change, a difficult process (as it should be). Slavery was abolished, the constitution was properly ammended. Women's voting rights, again a constitutional ammendment. Have we had ammendments regarding abortion or gay marriage? Is anyone actually ignorant enough to think that these things are in the constitution, or that the founding fathers remotely intended them to be?
If abortion or gay marriage is your cause, then start looking at a constitutional ammendment, don't read between the lines for something that's not there.

I absolutely do not intend to get into a debate about gay rights or abortion or any other issue. I'm just saying that as supporters of gun rights, I would expect most people here to support an originalist interpretation of the constitution. That is at odds with the ACLU position, as seen by their view of the 2nd ammendment.

For the record, lest I be accused of being some sort of closed minded bigot, I am a strong believer in human equality and believe all people should be treated with basic respect and dignity. We can all have different views and beliefs without hating one another. I believe that the far left's goal in not tolerance, but forced acceptance. I've seen more hatred and venom from the far left in the last few years; how is that enlightened?

You can't force someone to agree with you. Ultimately people will believe what the want to believe, despite any amount of clever argument or indisputable facts.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 02:09 PM

Even being on the left I agree that many lefties force "tolerance," which isn't really tolerance at all. I feel I'm tolerant because I believe that even, for example, a klansman has a right to his opinion so long as he does not actually carry out actions that are illegal. And I agree, we all have different beliefs and I'm happy we do:

1st: No one is always correct, by having differing opinions it creates a balance and the ability to think up new ideas.

2nd: The world would be a very boring place if we didn't

So I respect the differing opinions of people on this board. I wish no ill will on anyone with a different opinion. I have close friends whose opinions vary wildly from mine.

I just think its important that even though we have our differences we stand together to defend the 2nd ammendment.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 02:12 PM

And as far as speaking of Tierny, I remember a certain republican congressman who had to resign recently because of his advances towards the 16 year old kids who were trying to learn about government and help as aids to congressmen.

There are people that are good and bad on both sides of the spectrum.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 02:14 PM

Just to clarify when I said "And, I agree", I didn't mean with the klansman, I meant with the poster above who said we can all have different views w/o hating each other.

Titan6

April 23, 2007, 02:21 PM

I wonder why they have all those THR rules against dicussing Religion and sexual politics? This seems to be "degenerating" quick....

NM234

April 23, 2007, 02:24 PM

yeah, I do agree Titan, we've switched from the ACLU on guns to attacks and defenses on the ACLU in general. I'm sorry if I've gotten carried away its just that I am opinionated and like to talk about this sort of thing. I think one thing has led to another and we've just gotten further off topic. I think we can leave it at the ACLU not defending the 2nd Ammendment. Weither or not individual members support other stances is a topic for another place.

Colt

April 23, 2007, 02:33 PM

they merely want it seperated from the state and public institutions.

It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Freedom of religion means you don't need to shed your religion when in the public domain. You don't have to put the tenants of your religion aside when you step in the capitol building, even if you're a congressman.

No one can make you say a prayer at a public highschool. By the same token, however, the valedictorian is allowed to say a prayer or thank God during his/her graduation speech. You don't have to agree with the prayer, but you can't stop them from saying it any more than you could stop them from giving their opinion on what the future holds for the graduating class.

In point of fact, the total removal of any "mainstream" religion from the public square is actually an endorsement of Atheism or the now-popular religion of moral relativism.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 02:37 PM

I do agree that you shouldn't stop anyone from saying a prayer, but I think if you put the ten commandments on a big statue in front of the courthouse, that is favoring a certain set of beliefs over another.

DualBerettas

April 23, 2007, 02:38 PM

IT's such a riduculous theory, this collective rights...besides looking at the historical context and the fact that 'regulated' meant firearms and gear in good working order, and the founding fathers' quotes on private firearm ownership...

not to mention if you were to read that theory as:

the people can join the state and protect themselves from the government if it goes bad...this is SO flawed...

1. What happens if the state goes bad and you need to defend yourself from state tyranny...

2. If they were to attack without notice, they would certainly go to the armory before the citizens would be aware and be able to get there and get their weapons and orders...

3. during colonial times there was the unorganized militia which fought with personal arms and don't forget concord where the redcoats came to seize military muskets and rifles...

4. A collective right cannot exist without deriving itself from an individual right...it's like saying you can defend yourself as a group from the gov. but not as an individual from any tyranny, fed, state, or local....it's flawed so called 'logic'.

It's an individual right, that's it! Oh and the second amendment doesn't 'give' you a right to arms just as the first amendment doesn't 'give' you the right to free speech or to practice relgion or to practice it in a collective sense...

It's merely a guarantee and they put it with the Constitution to say, look in case your dumb and don't understand freedom we're going to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU.

Actually, the Texas ACLU chapter recently worked with the Texas State Rifle Assoc.

I wrote the ACLU and pointed out that the NRA could help teach the ACLU about gun rights and the ACLU could help teach the NRA about other freedoms besides the first and second amendments...

The more freedom groups we can bring together, the better off we will be.

DB

fatelk

April 23, 2007, 02:39 PM

Titan6,
Though most have tried to keep their posts respectful and refrained from personal attacks, I would agree we have definitely wandered off topic. This is my last post on this thread.

deltacharlie

April 23, 2007, 03:46 PM

Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.

That is the direct quote from the ACLU. Those aren't my words. But I do agree, it is easiest to start the slippery slope of curtailing the first ammendment by stopping people from saying things %99.9 of us find disgusting.Understand, and this is no flame on you but...Why not?

The ACLU is all for going down the slippery slope of gun control and far less than 99.9% of the public disagree with gun-ownership. In fact, more of the American public agrees with gunownership than those who disagree.

And touche on pointing out the dirtbag GOP congressman from Florida, I'd forgotten about that one. However, he was just a dirty-old-man...he wasn't getting his rocks off watching the torture of children with illegal pornography. However, he was wall-to-wall on TV, where was the Tierney coverage? The absence of which speaks volumes about the media.

I also find it interesting that the ACLU is sqeamish over the U.S. torturing enemy combatants, but it's ok for NAMBLA to publish (AND ENCOURAGE) the torture of children. And there's the ACLU with their tacit support. I am not advocating the curtailing of free speech, I am advocating that they pick a better battle than that client...they're a study in hypocrisy.

Instead of leaping to NAMBLA's defense, why not just ignore them like they do RKBA issues?

I'll tell you why, they are an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of America from the inside out. And the reason they don't defend the 2nd Amendment, is because an armed public will fight external and internal agressors.

Soybomb

April 23, 2007, 03:49 PM

all you need to know about the ACLU, is that it is an anti American group, founded by enemies of Democracy.
Why do you anti aclu guys drag this tired old horse out every time? Baldwin's been cold and in the ground for nearly as long as I've been alive, his interest in communism was in the 1920's. By the 1940's he had changed his political views, denounced communism, and communists had been purged from the ACLU. How is this relevant at all to today's ACLU? Could you show me their communist actions? This is like saying Ulysses Grant was an anti-semite, don't support the NRA!

Instead of leaping to NAMBLA's defense, why not just ignore them like they do RKBA issues?

I'll tell you why, they are an organization who's sole purpose is the destruction of America from the inside out.
Wow. Anyway the reason they leap to the defense of the craziest most disliked people possible is you don't have freedom of speech if you don't have the freedom to say horrible, despised, disgusting, things. Protecting the unliked fringe speech protects freedom of speech from the gradual erosion we've seen with the 2nd amendment. If our our lobby was so agressive and effective.

Joe Demko

April 23, 2007, 03:50 PM

ACLU defends the right of NAMBLA to talk about having sex with children. It does not and has not ever championed their "right" to have sex with children. If you do not know the difference or refuse to acknowledge it, then there is no point in trying to discuss the ACLU.

NM234

April 23, 2007, 05:14 PM

I do agree, Tierny should have been on the news as well. I was just pointing out there are good people that are left and right and bad people left and right. I'm sure you can find people on both sides guilty of the most despicable acts, as well as people that have done the kindest of deeds.

Also, the reason they jumped on the NAMBLA case was, as stated, it starts the slippery slope. Stating that you think peodophilia is ok is legal so long as you don't actually do it. And I agree that peodophilia is torture to children (the people at NAMBLA are so out of it they believe it to be healthy for them, which is disgusting and stupid, but they have a right to SAY it; I have a right to keep my kids the hell away from them if I ever have kids). And I DO agree the ACLU should interpret the 2nd ammendment broadly as well. But like I said, even if I disagree with someone 99% of the time I will stand with them on the 1% I do agree with (and I agree with the ACLU more than 1% of the time, I would actually put in work for them when I get my law degree (which I will hopefully have in 5 years, I currently am studying pre-law Poli. Sci.) on most things, just not anything that will hurt the 2nd ammendment; I plan on working legally to perserve that as well, even if I get paid nothing for it).

hrgrisso

April 23, 2007, 05:33 PM

I know this was about 5 pages ago... But I really need an answer:

LANTERNLAD or anyone who can explain this, thanks...

The problem with the Constitution is, either it works for EVERYONE, or it doesn't work at all.

:confused: :scrutiny: :eek:

I'm sorry what?

atek3

April 23, 2007, 05:35 PM

America without the ACLU and NRA would worse than it is now.

Sure we can imagine an ideal powerful civil rights organization (lets call it, Civil Rights Inc) as good on the first amendment as Cato Institute and as good on the Second as Gun Owners of America, but we have the ACLU and the NRA.

In some regards the separation might be a good thing. Crazy marxists wouldn't send money to the Civil Rights Inc because of the gun issue, and reactionary fascist gun owners wouldn't send money because civil libertarians generally believe in rights for everyone (even scumbag hippie gay NAMBLA members) (that last bit was hyperbole before anyone accuses me of being anti-"whatever")

atek3

Mongo the Mutterer

April 23, 2007, 05:41 PM

Free speech goes so far. Try yelling "FIRE" in a theater.

Defending NAMBLA shows where the ACLU is. That is all I need to know to detest them. :barf:

Soybomb

April 23, 2007, 05:47 PM

Free speech goes so far. Try yelling "FIRE" in a theater.

Defending NAMBLA shows where the ACLU is. That is all I need to know to detest them.
Alright how do we apply limitations on the written word that may be used to commit a crime in the future?

There are certainly many posts on this forum that could be seen as possible precursors to the overthrow of the US government.

alan

April 23, 2007, 05:55 PM

Getting past the rhetoric, re the ACLU as a NATIONAL organization, when and where, if ever, have they ever gone to court in defense of an individual gun owner, gun owners in general or gun rights.

By the way, their reference to nuclear weapons, rockets and such is pure hogwash, intended to muddy the waters, wherein their attitude toward gun rights is entirely clear. They do not support them, nor do they support individuals who happen to be gun owners, especially the law abiding type.

Soybomb

April 23, 2007, 06:03 PM

he ACLU as a NATIONAL organization, when and where, if ever, have they ever gone to court in defense of an individual gun owner, gun owners in general or gun rights.
When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech?

It'd be great if they agreed with us on the 2nd, but as long as they're doing us no harm, isn't it good to support those that defend the rest of the bill of rights too?

Sorry, that game doesn't play on this court. The NRA, as in the National RIFLE Assoc? Not the National FREE SPEECH Assoc. Don't expect them to be there for that fight.

The American Civil Liberties Union, i.e. civil rights, FREE SPEECH. They claim it. So when they get kicked for NOT protecting the 2nd, don't complain. But don't muddy up the water with Claiming that a GUN rights org. should take care of a 1st amendment issue.

Henry Bowman

April 23, 2007, 06:43 PM

When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech? You're kidding, right? The NRA led the charge (though unsuccessfully) in challenging the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance "reform" Act that limits political speech in the final weeks prior to an election.

Soybomb

April 23, 2007, 08:07 PM

Sorry, that game doesn't play on this court. The NRA, as in the National RIFLE Assoc? Not the National FREE SPEECH Assoc. Don't expect them to be there for that fight.
To each his own, personally I'm not into judging either organization by their names and how accurately applied those names are, but more how well each one campaigns for freedom. If the ACLU doesn't work for gun rights but doesn't work against them while working to support the other 9 parts of the bill of rights it seems like we're cutting off our nose to spite our face if we don't support them anyway. If they start working against gun rights then I'd feel differently.

alan

April 24, 2007, 02:18 AM

Soybomb
Quote:
he ACLU as a NATIONAL organization, when and where, if ever, have they ever gone to court in defense of an individual gun owner, gun owners in general or gun rights.
When has the NRA gone to court for my right to free speech?

It'd be great if they agreed with us on the 2nd, but as long as they're doing us no harm, isn't it good to support those that defend the rest of the bill of rights too?

-----------------

Your quote from my post, in my opinion, does not support the point you are trying to make. Actually, I find both the NRA, of which I'm a LIFE MEMBER, and the ACLU to be problematic. Problem with ACLU, in my opinion, is their strange selectiveness. I do not believe that one can pick and chose from amongst parts of the BOR, without weakening the entire thing.

As to your statement "they (the ACLU) are doing us no harm", think again on that.

Soybomb

April 24, 2007, 02:46 AM

As to your statement "they (the ACLU) are doing us no harm", think again on that.
Show me the actual harm they've done and convince me i shouldn't be sending them money. Thats all it will take to change my tune here.

Chui

April 24, 2007, 05:29 AM

Soybomb, do as you freely choose. You might wish to research that organization before you offer them a single peso... No one needs to try to convince you of anything. Prove it to yourself by reading everything about them. Once you've done so follow your consciense.

Personally, I cannot see how one could call themselves an American and support that Marxist ideologied organization, but obviously I'm more learned on that organization than you are at the present.

Carl N. Brown

April 24, 2007, 03:13 PM

The Second Amendment to the Constitution
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

According to judges in the Parker decision, the statement of general principle is preceded by a specific reason why that general principle is worthy of legal protection. This was not always done in writing past laws, and seems to have fallen out of favor as a style of writing laws today, so the rhetoric is confusing. The specific reason listed in laws in the past was not the only or the exclusive reason why the general priniciple ought to be protected, but was listed as an example of why it was worthy of legal protection. One of the reasons "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But it is not an exclusionary or limiting clause.

Carl N. Brown

April 24, 2007, 03:41 PM

If ACLU is defending not NAMBLA but NAMBLA's right to free speech,
exactly where was ACLU when Paladin Press was pilloried over "The
Hitman" book, written originally by a single mom who was not a hit
man? Exactly how was "The Hitman" any different from any of the
memiors of Mafia killers peddled by mainstream publishers?

(Personally I think NAMBLA is easier to keep tabs on if they are
"above ground" openly saying what they are. Suppression might
drive them even more underground, making them more dangerous.)

Mannlicher

April 24, 2007, 03:57 PM

Why do you anti aclu guys drag this tired old horse out every time? Baldwin's been cold and in the ground for nearly as long as I've been alive, his interest in communism was in the 1920's. By the 1940's he had changed his political views, denounced communism, and communists had been purged from the ACLU. How is this relevant at all to today's ACLU? Could you show me their communist actions? This is like saying Ulysses Grant was an anti-semite, don't support the NRA!

There is no discussion on this matter with the running dogs of the ACLU. They will not admit that the stated, if not the actual purpose of their organization is to destroy the moral fabric of America.

Joe Demko

April 24, 2007, 04:12 PM

but obviously I'm more learned on that organization than you are at the present.

That's one opinion.

LkWinnipesaukee

April 24, 2007, 04:34 PM

Didn't the ACLU support NAMBLA? :barf: Didn't they defend the KKK? Neo-Nazi groups? Wasn't it started by a Communist?

Carl N. Brown

April 24, 2007, 05:09 PM

ACLU supports and defends the free speech rights of NAMBLA, KKK
and NeoNazis, but they do not see that as supporting or defending
NAMBLA, the KKK or NeoNazis.

I hated the idea of the Nazis marching through the Jewish
neighborhood (Skokie IL but I quote from memory) and was upset
the ACLU defended that march, but they were not defending the
Nazis: in the ACLU's view they were defending the right of everyone
to freely express their beliefs.

American Communists in the 1930s were rather niave (I believe
Soviet leaders called them useful idiots). Now, some American or
some American group being communist after the 1930s took denial
or real idiocy.

NM234

April 24, 2007, 06:07 PM

Also I wanted to point out that some Marxist ideology has been put to use in this country (public schools, certain health care programs, etc.) we are a mixed economy (a mix of capitalism and socialism, there wouldn't be anti-trust laws, etc. w/o some communist influence). Also communism is an economic system, not a political one. Which is why there are philosophies such as democratic-socialism (where wealth is more evenly distributed but personal freedoms such as speach and religion as well as the vote is preserved)

Now I think if we switched over to complete Marxism it would work out horribly, but I if we had pure capitalism it would destroy itself as well. Like most things in life a balance works out best.

Also the Soviets weren't really even communists, they were a totalitarian state that served a few powerful dictators. They didn't distribute wealth evenly etc. They were just jerks. Now I want to clarify, I'm not a communist; but we do have a mixed economy to some degree.

SaMx

April 24, 2007, 06:21 PM

There is no discussion on this matter with the running dogs of the ACLU. They will not admit that the stated, if not the actual purpose of their organization is to destroy the moral fabric of America.Freedom is the founding principal of the United States of America, and the ACLU has done a great deal to protect freedom. Some people don't like freedom when it offends them, whether it freedom to own guns, or freedom to say stupid things. But in my opinion, freedom is the ultimate moral law, and destroying that freedom is the best way to destroy the moral fabric of America.

-terry

April 24, 2007, 06:24 PM

+1 NM234
It's nice to see reason and argument in the midst of "They are all commie bastards" or some such.

-terry

deltacharlie

April 25, 2007, 12:27 AM

Saying and doing are two different things, yes, on this point we can all agree. Any lowlife living in America can get his (or her) jollies off by "talking about" molesting children...no law against that. And if I want to talk about "torturing child molesters by dragging them behind my truck" ... no law against that either.

However, until (I see) the ACLU protect the 2nd Amendment with the same publicity and unified zeal that they reserve for pedophiles and neo-Nazi, they are just Hypocrites, plain and simple.

Just like cops cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce, the ACLU, that self-appointed guardian of our rights, cannot pick and choose which rights to defend without the well deserved label of hypocrites.

alan

April 25, 2007, 01:39 AM

Soybomb:

While I cannot site any particular harm done us by the ACLU, as you ask, I submit that via their strange selectiveness, they have weakened the entirety of the BOR. Additionally, they have most certainly, and in general, aided and abetted the enemies of Second Amendment Rights.

JWarren

April 25, 2007, 01:46 AM

Show me the actual harm they've done and convince me i shouldn't be sending them money. Thats all it will take to change my tune here.

That's easy.

The harm is done by what political candidates they support for office.

Politics are "package deals" where a pile of ideologies are lumped together to create an attractive product for the voting public to buy.

More often than not, in my opinion, candidates supported by the ACLU are ALSO pro-gun control, thereby harming our cause.

I base this on the political reality that the ACLU has historically aligned itself with liberal candidates and those same candidates have touted their support for the ACLU as a campaigning point.

Extrapolating that liberal candidates more often than not vote for pro-gun control measures, supporting the ACLU puts money in the pockets of those who use that money to elect enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

-- John

Chui

April 25, 2007, 02:07 AM

Communism is an economic system, but it is more correctly termed SOCIALISM VIA DICTATORSHIP.

And while I paint with a broad brush there is Trotskyism (look at our self-described neoconservative politicians today for modern examples thereof), Leninism and Marxism. All are generically termed "Communism" just as all of the fighting dogs are termed "Molossids" (i.e., Mastiffs) or "Bulldogs".

So, good call.

RPCVYemen

April 25, 2007, 01:51 PM

As a card carrying member of BOTH the ACLU AND the NRA, I look at it this way...

Me too.

I think that the rights in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution work together. The NRA has been delirously happy to support politicians who were busy shredding privacy and due priocess rights.

Now that the government has been given the power - by the NRA funded politicans - to go to any gun store and ask for lists of purchases any time w/o even the slightest scrutiny by a judge, who do you think will be the targets of "national security letters" when the anti-gun folks are in power? And if your buddy at the gun shop give you a heads up, he goes to jail.

Hope you've never checked any gun books out of the library - politicans who go massive donations from NRA decided that it would be a good idea to let the feds have access to those records. You can thank folks who focus on the RKBA as an exclusive right for those "national security letters."

I forgot, we're guaranteed that those letters will only be used against someon e with "Mohammed" as first name, or "ibn" somewhere in their name.

Every time we pass a law - assured that it will only be used against bad guys - it ends up being used against anyone the government wants to use it aaginst. Remember RICO was only supposed to be used against "mafia bosses". Now, the only people it's not used aganist is mafia bosses!

The authors of the Bill of Rights got it correct - the rights are all interlinked. Without right to due process, without rights against unlawful searches, what value is the right to keep and bear arms?

Mike

buzz_knox

April 25, 2007, 02:08 PM

The authors of the Bill of Rights got it correct - the rights are all interlinked. Without right to due process, without rights against unlawful searches, what value is the right to keep and bear arms?

True enough. So isn't ironic that the group which you assert protects the first two of the rights you enumerated has decided for political reasons that the last right you assert doesn't exist?

If the gov't uses ACLU sanctioned methods to round up firearms, the ACLU will do . . . what?

RPCVYemen

April 25, 2007, 03:00 PM

True enough. So isn't ironic that the group which you assert protects the first two of the rights you enumerated has decided for political reasons that the last right you assert doesn't exist?

Huh? Where in my post did you find that assertion that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist?

Did you miss the "card carrying member of the NRA" part?

Mike

buzz_knox

April 25, 2007, 03:03 PM

Huh? Where in my post did you find that assertion that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist?

My statement was about the irony of a group protecting two rights while insisting the third doesn't exist. It wasn't directed at you, although there is a certain irony in your strong suggestion that the NRA doesn't protect other rights, and that somehow the ACLU does, when the ACLU is guilty of exactly the same thing as the NRA: picking and choosing which rights it will support in order to serve its needs.

.cheese.

April 25, 2007, 03:11 PM

I'm going to be calling the local branch head. He knows me, and will be willing to talk if nothing else about the issue.

buzz_knox

April 25, 2007, 03:15 PM

I'm going to be calling the local branch head. He knows me, and will be willing to talk if nothing else about the issue.

What leeway do the local branches have in this area? Once the national ACLU has opined on an issue, can the branches go their own way? Didn't the board of the ACLU attempt to muzzle internal dissent just last summer?

I want to like the ACLU, but I don't agree with thier postion on ONE of the Bill of Rights.

I see a lot of arguements about how the NRA only is concerned with the 2nd A, and not the others and this fact somehow justifies the ACLU's position.

It doesn't in my opinion, and I'll explain.

The ACLU supposedly supports our rights as American Citizens under the Bill of Rights. They effectively paint with a broad brush that encompasses all our civil rights -- except the RKBA.

By supporting all of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, they are essentially stating that this should not be an individual Right.

Groups like the NRA are special interest groups. They have a pin-point focus rather than a broad brush. There are MANY pin-point focused groups out there, though none as powerful as the NRA.

It's really comparing apples to oranges when using the NRA and ACLU.

-- John

RPCVYemen

April 25, 2007, 03:25 PM

The point of my post was that I was a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA. Maybe I didn't make that clear. Neither protects them all. Did you read the post I quoted?

As a card carrying member of BOTH the ACLU AND the NRA, I look at it this way...

The ACLU works hard to protect MOST of our rights.
The NRA works hard to protect the right the ACLU doesnt protect.

How can you possibly read that as an assertion that the ACLU protects the RKBA?

I wish there were one organzation that protected them all! As RKBA advocates, I think we have a tendency to forget the other rights, and to ignore assaults on those rights.

Mike

JWarren

April 25, 2007, 03:27 PM

I wish there were one organzation that protected them all! As RKBA advocates, I think we have a tendency to forget the other rights, and to ignore assaults on those rights.

The problem is that they organizations typically support diametrically opposed law-makers. Supporting them both equates to a net-zero in benefit.

I, too, would like to see a strong Pro-ALL Rights organization.

-- John

buzz_knox

April 25, 2007, 03:36 PM

How can you possibly read that as an assertion that the ACLU protects the RKBA?

Read what I wrote again:

True enough. So isn't ironic that the group which you assert protects the first two of the rights you enumerated has decided for political reasons that the last right you assert doesn't exist?

You asserted three rights in your statement. I merely commented that the organization you support for its (alleged given its suppression of internal dissent) committment to the first two has decided the last right you listed doesn't exist.

.cheese.

April 25, 2007, 03:37 PM

buzz_knox - baby steps. It's better than doing nothing right?

Plus, he knows most of the national HQ big-wigs and is on good terms with them.

Also, the "local branch" that I worked at and know the head of, is the state HQ for the ACLU. So that can only help I'd assume. He's actually a reasonable guy, so I'll bet he'll listen. Whether or not he agrees or disagrees is fine - that's the beauty of America afterall - but he'll listen, and that's a start.

buzz_knox

April 25, 2007, 03:40 PM

buzz_knox - baby steps. It's better than doing nothing right?

Plus, he knows most of the national HQ big-wigs and is on good terms with them.

I know you didn't mean it that way, but I have to say this is incredibly ironic. A person can say what he wants within an organization dedicated to freedom of speech not because of said freedom, but because his assocation and friendships with those in power will protect him.

Titan6

April 25, 2007, 04:06 PM

If you want an organization that protects the entire bill of rights try the Cato Institute. It is about as close as you are going to get.

Derek Zeanah

April 25, 2007, 04:07 PM

What gets me is if someone (like me) steps up and says they won't join the NRA because they disagree with many of its stances and approaches, lotsa folks here will defend the organization and talk about it being the duty of any gun owner to join, because they do good in other areas. Some will point out that the best way to change the organization is to join it, or even become a life member to gain voting rights. If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem, right?

On the other hand, many of those same posters will vilify the the ACLU because of their stance on gun rights, and will take the opposite approach to it. They may do good works, but if they're not pro-gun then you're wrong to join. You want to take a membership role and try to change things from the inside? You're somehow misguided...

Rights are rights, I'd think...

JWarren

April 25, 2007, 04:14 PM

Derek.

I sympathize with that opinion, but it still falls back to the nature by which those rights are protected.

Often organizations such as the NRA, ACLU, etc. support Rights by contributing to campaigns and spend on lobbying efforts to certain policitians.

It's the major methods of supporting the rights that hang us up.

Basically, a dollar spent supporting the ACLU very well may offset that dollar given to the NRA. All that ends up happening is the politicians benefit, the organizations get clout, and you are now out $2.

-- John

Derek Zeanah

April 25, 2007, 04:18 PM

Basically, a dollar spent supporting the ACLU very well may offset that dollar given to the NRA. All that ends up happening is the politicians benefit, the organizations get clout, and you are now out $2.And for those of us who care about all of our rights, that goes both ways. Agreed?

deltacharlie

April 25, 2007, 05:09 PM

By supporting all of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, they are essentially stating that this should not be an individual Right. Some rights are more equal than others, at least according to the ACLU apparently.

buzz_knox

April 25, 2007, 05:39 PM

On the other hand, many of those same posters will vilify the the ACLU because of their stance on gun rights, and will take the opposite approach to it. They may do good works, but if they're not pro-gun then you're wrong to join. You want to take a membership role and try to change things from the inside? You're somehow misguided...

You can't change things from the inside, remember? The ACLU doesn't allow dissent.

Individual members and even local chapters are interested in rights; the ACLU as an organization seems far more interested in becoming the arbiter of what those rights are.

By supporting all of the Bill of Rights EXCEPT the 2nd Amendment, they are essentially stating that this should not be an individual Right.

There's nothing "essential" about it. That's the statement they've put forth. The 2nd Amendment is not an individual right in the view of the ACLU, because they don't like what the result of said right would be.

JWarren

April 25, 2007, 07:41 PM

And for those of us who care about all of our rights, that goes both ways. Agreed?

Very much in agreement-- which is why I would love to see a powerful, full-blown PAC representing ALL of our rights.

It doesn't seem that it would be all that hard to have one. I honestly think most people see it that way-- Take THR for example.

I give the ACLU credit for being more multi-faceted than other PAC's, and I do think it is a short-coming of groups like the NRA to be single-faceted. Really, it isn't the PAC's that are so much of the problem as it is our two-party system. It's hard to pick "A" or "B" when they both lacking in thier platform ideals.

Just my take.

All the best!

-- John

Soybomb

April 26, 2007, 01:06 AM

While I cannot site any particular harm done us by the ACLU, as you ask, I submit that via their strange selectiveness, they have weakened the entirety of the BOR.
This certainly comes down to individual perspective but I certainly think the ACLU has won more court victories that have had a real impact on freedom than any perceived weakening by selectiveness. If you're honest with yourself, do you really think they've taken more freedom than they're protected? Thats a real tough sell for me.

The harm is done by what political candidates they support for office.
What am I do then when the NRA supports candidates that weaken my other rights? If we sacrifice all the other rights for the 2nd amendment, what is the 2nd amendment even protecting anymore? I would imagine far more ACLU money is spent on legal battle than elections but thats just a wild guess.

I'd love it if they agreed with me 100% but at the end of the day I want as many people fighting for the bill of rights as possible. Supporting only the NRA won't help out the other 9. Supporting the ACLU won't help the 2nd amendment but it won't hurt it and it will work for the other 9. Turning them down isn't going to protect any of my freedoms.

JWarren

April 26, 2007, 01:14 AM

I would imagine far more ACLU money is spent on legal battle than elections but thats just a wild guess.

The opposite of this has been an unsubstantiated premise in my reasoning in this thread. My contention has been that the monies donated likely are spent more on placing candidates.

As you have acknowledged in guessing, I'm making assumptions as well. I'll see if I can't find some information on how monies are spent. It's unlikely that it will be public however.

If monies are spent more on placing candidates, then it's an impossible impasse. On some level or the other, supporting one will go against another, and vice-versa.

And that frustrates me, as I imagine it does others here as well.

-- John

Soybomb

April 26, 2007, 02:00 AM

In the interest of helping us end our speculation I've found this so far
http://www.acluprocon.org/pop/ACLUStructure.html#budget

The American Civil Liberties Union is composed of two separate corporate entitites: the ACLU Foundation and the ACLU. The ACLU engages primarily in legislative lobbying while the ACLU Foundation carries out most of the litigation and communication efforts. A contribution to the ACLU Foundation is tax-deductible but does not provide membership privileges. Membership is possible only through a non-tax deductible contribution to the ACLU. The two organizations share office space and employees and are together commonly referred to as the ACLU.